From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: Question regarding shebang /bin/sh Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2020 16:27:55 +0100 Message-ID: <53891B8B-C2F7-48EB-A5A0-33142C2AF705@ipfire.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5081290725771976201==" List-Id: --===============5081290725771976201== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi, I normally use /bin/bash, because I use =E2=80=9Cbashisms=E2=80=9D and I have= not a clue what is compatible with what shell. I do not think that there is a single distribution who is linking /bin/sh to = anything else than a GNU bash apart from Debian and everything that is using = busybox. The latter is totally irrelevant for us. Dash - the Debian shell is becoming = less popular. People who are using fancy shells like ZSH or fish only use tha= t for the user accounts, but the /bin/sh symlink remains untouched. There is probably no collateral damage from changing our scripts from /bin/sh= to /bin/bash. The other way round would definitely cause problems. Hope this helps. -Michael > On 7 Apr 2020, at 16:24, Peter M=C3=BCller wro= te: >=20 > Hello *, >=20 > quite a bunch of initscripts in IPFire 2.x contains the /bin/sh as given in= terpreter > in their shebang line. Since /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash, I guess it = makes sense > to rewrite them to /bin/bash accordingly. >=20 > That way, we avoid potential collateral damage by following symlinks (dange= rous!) and provide > additional information so tools like shellcheck know what they are actually= dealing with. >=20 > Opinions? >=20 > Thanks, and best regards, > Peter M=C3=BCller --===============5081290725771976201==--